From Russia with Love

Agent 007 is back in the second installment of the James Bond series, this time battling a secret crime organization known as SPECTRE. Russians Rosa Klebb and Kronsteen are out to snatch a decoding device known as the Lektor, using the ravishing Tatiana to lure Bond into helping them. Bond willingly travels to meet Tatiana in Istanbul, where he must rely on his wits to escape with his life in a series of deadly encounters with the enemy

James Bond willingly falls into an assassination ploy involving a naive Russian beauty in order to retrieve a Soviet encryption device that was stolen by SPECTRE. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

Private U (br) wrote: Giving 3 stars only cos it is an iconic Singapore effort. But pls... the girls in the show are so fugly.... that if Geylang was really like that..... every man would need viagra... and really have to switch off the lights...

Radhika N (ru) wrote: Considering the size of the Indian film industry, serious topical films are few and far between- even taking into account the new crop of films that try to "expose" something (like Bhandarkar's films, for instance. Given this, Parzania is a needed statement on Gujarat and the 2002 riots. The film is a bit too rosy and paints the picture of the ideal family who are blissfully happy and dwells on it for far too frames towards the first half. Still it is a good movie shot to international viewing standards -in other words no song n dance numbers in parks & running time of under 2 hours.A couple of things done deliberately to make the film work on an international and national level are: 1. there is an American narrator which allows audiences to see things from an "outside" (or more objective perhaps) perspective, 2. the family at the center of the movie is Parsi rather than Muslim (who were the main targets of the rioting mobs) disallowing the Hindu audience (if they were so inclined) to dismiss the family's plight as deserved, and 3. the film is shot entirely in English (albeit Indish) which means one doesnt have to miss out the nuances of the native Indian languages by reading subtitles. The film features some really good performances. The human rights commission scences towards the end of the movie were the most powerful though Sarika's emotive monologue seemed too melodramatic and not entirely in line with the style ofthe other testimonies. Still a needed breath of fresh air and a film worth watching at least once.

Matthew C (ca) wrote: Yul Brynner is like the devil come to town to bend it to his will. But is he a villain? Or a hero? Both, or neither? And does the town deserve the hell he brings with him? A strangely cerebral western with some fine performances from a lot of character actors. And dang, Brynner is one mysterious dude.

Dave J (ru) wrote: I am not sure what this had to do with the first movie (nothing really) or why it is set in the middle east or why there are monsters walking around the desert. Not that it matters as the monsters have no real role or point in the movie. Nothing much is explained as the story jumps around plot points that involve military personal. None of which is interesting.

Vince K (ru) wrote: Dirty, Australian man-boy love story with a Sling Blade-sounding hoodlum and lots of death.

Chris D (mx) wrote: Overrated, I'm afraid. The pacing of this film is horrendous: I followed it patiently through the first act (about an hour and a half), but I began fast forwarding as the second act started. The film simply takes too long to get to the point, and there's a lot of dreary and dull scenes between the good ones. A few shots I found to be very beautiful: the child with the kitten, who's about to fall asleep, between his lap, the bird that lands on Gish's shoulder, as well as the final scenes in the snow and ice floes. I might have liked the film more if I had seen it prior to Broken Blossoms (another, better work by D.W. Griffith), but that film had more going for it. Gish is a much less sympathetic character here, as a naive country woman who foolishly elopes with a man she barely knows. The baby scenes I found very distasteful: melodrama for melodrama's sake. I understood that Griffith was trying to illustrate the pain Gish was going through in the most visceral way possible, but those scenes felt incredibly unsubtle and even corny. A dead child should not be scripted this way, although Gish does her best with the scenes. It all clicks too easily: the baby dies right before the doctor arrives again, her phony husband lives next door the Bartlett's. The movie has a cold feeling, visualized nicely by the climatic ice-river scenes (probably the best part of the film). I simply don't understand the culture of the times: she is thrown out of home she was staying when her baby died, because they learned she had no husband. Maybe the time frame wasn't made clear, but I had the impression her baby had JUST died, so I was horrified by the callousness of these women giving her the boot. I lost my suspension of disbelief at this situation that was contrived just to get Gish wandering to where she'd find the farmhouse. I started fast forwarding when I realized that this movie was simply "Broken Blossoms" with a change in scenery: a physical abusive father replaced by a emotionally abusive, fake husband. The Chinese lover replaced by the Country lover, both much more tender than the last man in Gish's life (not to mention played by the same man!). I think the baby was added just to make sure we were aware how bad her life really was, the physical abuse was enough in Broken Blossoms. I can't avoid the comparison, and despite the handful of well-done scenes and the great climax, I can't recommend the film as a whole.